Hi
can any body tell me wat are the technologies need to know before
starting learning ror.
and tell me the sequence of learning ROR.(including list of softwares
and editors) pls…
Familiarize the 3 (html tags, cascading style sheets and javascript) are
the basics. 
and you’re good to go. Next DB storage for DB driven
sites. These items are for the noob.
cheers,
Andre
2010/11/26 pardu [email protected]
Hi
can any body tell me wat are the technologies need to know before
starting learning ror.
and tell me the sequence of learning ROR.(including list of softwares
and editors) pls…
It depends on what you would like to do. But as far as I am concerned
you do
not need a lot to know if you are already familiar with website
development.
-
The usual technologies apply: javascript, your favorite SQL.
-
The sequence of learning is almost developers preference, though
there
are paradigms that are promoted. Like Behavior Driven Development
(using
such techs as Cucumber and RSpec/Shoulda) -
Editors: There is no magic behind any editor. If you are an old
hardcore geek emacs, vi, vim and friends might be cool for you. If
you are a
dot.com generation, then you may want an IDE like Netbeans, Rubymine
and
Geany. They are good at suggesting object methods almost “on the fly”
(or
after pressing the usual “pressing causality”, TAB
). If you are
interested in “Editor and OS” fights, you can get more on this forum.
People
have been battling over these for sometime now, and it is NP-Complete
!!
: http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk -
One thing you should understand is that Rails (Just as Ruby itself)
is
fast changing. Most of the resources that we have on-line or books
currently in print may not be very relevant. For example, I myself
use Rails
2.3.2 and 2.3.5 depending on my projects. But this implies I am
missing a
lot because there is RoR 3.0.0 out there right now, and many things
have
changed in between these versions including programming techniques
like how
we create and run Rails apps. -
There are still better tutorials online, including how to setup
Rails
on a machine of your preference (Windows, Linux, Mac). When it comes
to
that, Google is your friend, just google for what you want. This link
might
be of help to you:
Getting Started with Rails — Ruby on Rails Guides. I
would also do injustice if I would not point you to the resource I
used when
I was starting Rails. I used Agile Web D. with Rails (2nd
edition)http://pragprog.com/titles/rails2/agile-web-development-with-rails.
But as you notice on it web page, the book is out print now. But I
hope it
is still available in bookshops. Right now,
3rdhttp://pragprog.com/titles/rails3/agile-web-development-with-rails-third-editionand
4th
http://pragprog.com/titles/rails4/agile-web-development-with-railseditions
are available for purchase. They cover at least recent changes to
Rails. For me, I still respect the 2nd edition because it is the one
that
taught me how to “role on Rails”.
Good luck, boss. Happy coding!!
Edmond
Software Developer | Baobab Health Trust (http://www.baobabhealth.org/)
|
Malawi
Cell: +265 999 465 137 | +265 881 234 717
*“Leading the Improvement of Health through Information and
Communication
Technology in the Developing World” The *Creed of *Baobab Health
*
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 3:59 AM, gezope [email protected] wrote:
I’m not an expert, don’t believe me
But I agree with others: W3
basics are useful, because you won’t understand the picture in Rails.So first HTML+CSS+JavaScript, hopefully from The Source:
http://www.w3schools.com/
Hopefully not. The real “Source” is http://w3.org, at least for HTML and
CSS. It’s been years since I looked at w3schools but it used to be an
utter mess of missing and erroneous information. Read and bookmark
the actual W3C recommendations as references.
A newcomer to the web should also read the HTTP RFCs.
–
Hassan S. ------------------------ [email protected]
twitter: @hassan
Hello,
I’m not an expert, don’t believe me But I agree with others: W3
basics are useful, because you won’t understand the picture in Rails.
So first HTML+CSS+JavaScript, hopefully from The Source:
Here you found the standards.
I think it’s a good way to check how thing usually works on the net,
so make an easy blog with a CMS, like WordPress. Don’t involve deeply,
just write basic notes about your development. Use Gmaps, Google
Analitycs, Twitter, Facebook, RSS feed, so later you will know where
to find your way or what a customer needs for example.
Since Rails is Ruby on Rails: Ruby is the programming language which
used to build Rails, which is a web framework. It helped me a lot,
that I started with Ruby, therefore code is not alien. And the most
important: error messages meaningful.
Start it, play and try out everything you find, not just read it.
Practise is more important then theory in this field. You will study
the most from your fails, mostly when you have to rebuild something.
So the way I see useful: first only static pages (HTML, CSS,
JavaScript), then try out a CMS but don’t study it much, then
programming language Ruby, then the framework Rails.
Additional:
Find a good mentor;
Change to Unix based system (MacOS or Linux);
Find out pages and webapps what you want to create - this will help
you to achieve your goals, you won’t give up!
good luck,
Zoltn
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser
[email protected] wrote:
Depends. Most of w3schools’ HTML and CSS information that I’ve seen is
pretty good. It’s usually one of the first places I tell learners to go.
Good for you. It’s still not the definitive source for the HTML and CSS
recommendations, whatever improvements they’ve made to it. Which
I see no reason to waste time evaluating when the real thing is
available.
Read and bookmark the actual W3C recommendations as references.
That won’t help a beginner. Even after 12 years of Web design and
development, I find those documents nearly unreadable.
My heart goes out to you – but maybe other people won’t have that
problem. Learning to read the canonical documents wouldn’t seem
like such an ambitious goal.
A newcomer to the web should also read the HTTP RFCs.
Why on earth?
Because there are people posting here who obviously have no idea
how HTTP really works. I think that’s essential for someone doing
“web development”.
But remaining ignorant is certainly an option – even a popular one in
some quarters, apparently.
–
Hassan S. ------------------------ [email protected]
twitter: @hassan
Hassan S. wrote in post #964393:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser
[email protected] wrote:Depends. Most of w3schools’ HTML and CSS information that I’ve seen is
pretty good. It’s usually one of the first places I tell learners to go.Good for you. It’s still not the definitive source for the HTML and CSS
recommendations, whatever improvements they’ve made to it.
Of course it isn’t. But it is geared to learners, which the official
spec is not.
Which
I see no reason to waste time evaluating
Then don’t waste time expressing unfounded opinions about it.
when the real thing is
available.
The real thing is the definitive reference. It is not geared to
learners. I think that if a raw beginner tried to learn HTML from the
official spec, he’d never get out of the starting gate.
Read and bookmark the actual W3C recommendations as references.
That won’t help a beginner. Even after 12 years of Web design and
development, I find those documents nearly unreadable.My heart goes out to you – but maybe other people won’t have that
problem. Learning to read the canonical documents wouldn’t seem
like such an ambitious goal.
I perhaps overstated a little. I do refer to the spec for reference.
But I don’t think it’s meant for learners.
A newcomer to the web should also read the HTTP RFCs.
Why on earth?
Because there are people posting here who obviously have no idea
how HTTP really works. I think that’s essential for someone doing
“web development”.
Yes. But again, the RFC, while the definitive references, is probably
not the best introduction. I think a high-level explanation of the HTTP
request cycle is probably more helpful.
But remaining ignorant is certainly an option – even a popular one in
some quarters, apparently.
Unfortunately, it seems so.
–
Hassan S. ------------------------ [email protected]
twitter: @hassan
Best,
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
[email protected]
Hassan S. wrote in post #964318:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 3:59 AM, gezope [email protected] wrote:
I’m not an expert, don’t believe me
basics are useful, because you won’t understand the picture in Rails.So first HTML+CSS+JavaScript, hopefully from The Source:
http://www.w3schools.com/Hopefully not. The real “Source” is http://w3.org, at least for HTML and
CSS. It’s been years since I looked at w3schools
Then don’t write about it, since you clearly don’t know what you’re
talking about here.
but it used to be an
utter mess of missing and erroneous information.
Depends. Most of w3schools’ HTML and CSS information that I’ve seen is
pretty good. It’s usually one of the first places I tell learners to
go.
Read and bookmark
the actual W3C recommendations as references.
That won’t help a beginner. Even after 12 years of Web design and
development, I find those documents nearly unreadable.
A newcomer to the web should also read the HTTP RFCs.
Why on earth? That’s like saying that to use your computer, you should
first study basic electronics.
–
Hassan S. ------------------------ [email protected]
twitter: @hassan
Best,
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
[email protected]
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser
[email protected] wrote:
Of course it isn’t. But it is geared to learners, which the official
spec is not.
Whatever you say. I (and I’m sure many others) learned from the
recommendations and view source because that was all there
was at the time – never seemed to be an insurmountable problem.
Which I see no reason to waste time evaluating
Then don’t waste time expressing unfounded opinions about it.
Unfounded? If you recall, I said w3schools used to be full of errors;
it may or may not still be true, so – caveat student. That’s all.
–
Hassan S. ------------------------ [email protected]
twitter: @hassan